Chris Matthews is now officially off the deep end. He completely distorted a section of a piece with Michelle Malkin in which she was discussing how the veterans in Unfit to Command had suggested that one of Kerry’s purple hearts was from a self-inflicted wound into putting words into Malkin’s mouth that she somehow believed that Kerry had intentionally inflicted his own wounds.
It was stunning. It is almost like the major media outlets have decided to answer the question about media bias once and for all. Their answer?
“We are whores for the Democrats.”
I will discuss this exchange tomorrow if the Howler does not nail it first.
*** Update ***
Never mind- Michelle Malkin defends herself:
Willie Brown expresses exasperation over Swift Boat Vets’ questions about Kerry’s wounds. He says: “There are questions about the shrapnel wounds. So what else is there? How much he got shot? How deep? How much shrapnel does he have?
Note that I didn’t bring the subject of shrapnel. (Got that, Keith Olbermann?) Willie Brown raised the issue.
Here is how I responded verbatim:
“Well yeah. Why don’t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.”
Matthews frantically stuffed words down my mouth when I raised these allegations made in Unfit for Command that Kerry’s wounds might have been self-inflicted. In his ill-informed and ideologically warped mind, this transmogrified into me accusing Kerry of “shooting himself on purpose” to get an award.
I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were “self inflicted wounds.” I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.
Only someone who had not read Unfit for Command would interpret what I was saying the way Matthews did. The book raises questions by vets, many of whom were with Kerry, about whether there was or wasn’t enemy fire during the Dec. 1968 incident that led to his first Purple Heart (Patrick Runyon is quoted in a Boston Globe account on p. 35 saying “I can’t say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn’t say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm.”) and whether the injury came from a self-inflicted wound after he caught a tiny piece of shrapnel when he fired a grenade from his M-79 grenade launcher too close (p. 36); whether or not there was “intense rocket and rifle fire” during the Feb. 1969 incident that led to his second Purple Heart (Rocky Hildreth, officer of an accompanying boat on Dam Doi Canal that day, says there was no “intense rocket and rifle fire” on p. 78); and whether the shrapnel wound in his buttocks, which Kerry says he sustained in March 1969 and led to the awarding of his third Purple Heart, was the result of a mine explosion while on a mission or from a wound from his own grenade that he set off too close to a stock of rice he was trying to destroy (p. 87). See also pages 30-31. I was trying to get to these points, but Matthews would not let me finish a sentence.
Well, guess what? This foaming jerk Matthews, who called me irresponsible and kicked me off the show admitted that a) he himself had not read the damned book, b) he was not interested in asking Kerry about the specific doubts raised by vets about his wounds, and c) he had not and would not question Kerry about these specific allegations.
“Are you saying he shot himself on purpose?” Matthews hammered. I repeated myself again clearly that I was referring to the allegations about self-inflicted wounds in the book. When I tried to explain that the vets who were with Kerry had cast a lot of doubt on whether enemy fire occurred during the first two incidents, Matthews cut me off again. “Why did you say that?” he badgered. Because, I said, I was talking about what was in the book, which he had admitted he hadn’t read.
Yep. ‘Foaming jerk Matthews’ about sums it up. Maybe he was auditioning for a Media Matters job with Atrios.
*** Update ***
There is no way to descibe this Oliver Willis post as anything other than a flat out lie. Oliver Riefenstahl. Has a nice ring to it.
*** Update ***
Matthews better stay the hell away from google.
i agree. he was on auto-rant so intensly he could barely stop badgering her to answer long enough to let her answer. And why on earth was he asking Thurlow to speak for the president? the best shot for Malkin was when she asked him to produce the White House directives to the Swiftvets.
Chris Matthews has always had a bad habit of foot in mouth behavior…
It indicates that he again knows he’s invested his energy whatever little credibility he might have left in another loser…
Matthews acted the same way when the SUPREME GORON was running in 2000…
Chris was so pissed off that Michelle Malkin wouldn’t give him the answer he wanted, that his face was visibly contorted as he rapidly badgered her rapid fire with; “yes or no, do you think his wounds were self inflicted”. I couldn’t help but holler repeatedly at the TV for her to tell him; “I wasn’t there, I read the book–why don’t you?”
I think it was said (haven’t got the book yet) that he shot a bag of rice (contraban) at close range and got rice in his ass. Intentional or not, it’s still self inflicted.
Seems to me that after the Matt Dowd confrontation–where Dowd refused to acknowledge that the administration’s website was taking completely out of context the “anti-war candidate” comment that Kerry had previously made on Hardball–Matthews has had it with republican shills, hacks and slime-artists coming on his show and lying out of their asses.
Too, John, I anxiously await your response to the Times’ giving your not so Swifties the exposure they so richly deserve today.
I await bloggerhead’s ability to use appropriately the words
Then, and only then I’ll respond substantively.
I didn’t see it, and have never thought highly of Chris Matthews (putting it lightly).
Here’s Michelle’s take:
Whoops, wrong url. Here’s the correct one:
Perhaps Matthews got the story wrong, but the problem was of Malkin’s making. Matthews asked her 10 -11 times “are you saying that Kerry shot himself on purpose”. She may have been flustered, but how hard would it have been to say “no”? And then how hard would it have been to explain when the inevitable follow up question, “well what do you mean then?” was posed. Instead this exchange occurred:
MATTHEWS: No. No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
The book may say one thing, but Malkin was clearly implying something more sinister. It would also appear that she hadn’t read the book either, but was merely sent on the show (or accepted an invitation) to get in some slime shots of her own.
So now you’re calling me a Nazi? Nice.
No- I am calling you a propogandist on par with Michael Moore and Leni Riefenstahl.
Nice try at martyrdom, Oliver. You would think we correspond enough privately for you know damned well I don’t think you are a Nazi.
Tell me I was dreaming when I saw that Oliver Willis was making commentary on Michelle Malkin’s physical appearance.
Oliver works for David Brock. Why would you be surprised that he lies. He’s learning from the master.
And good catch by RW. Anyone in the party of Barbara Milulski, Madeline Albright, and Maxine Waters has no business talking about the appearance of a hottie like Malkin, especially not when the person making the comments could stand to lose about 50 pounds.
Let’s see — Malkin goes on television on lies about what’s in the Swift Vets book, which itself is full of lies, but she can’t even forthrightly set out the Swift Vets allegations, and its Matthews’ fault?
You don’t have a right to go on TV and tell bald faced lies.
Even if you take the Swift Vet book at face value, Malkin lied.
No one has ever alleged that Kerry shot himself intentionally — but that’s what Malkin said.
As Atrios points out, the “self-inflicted” talking point is supposed to misleadingly suggest that he shot himself, but Malkin was too dumb to pull that off.
***You don’t have a right to go on TV and tell bald faced lies.***
Max Cleland was on the show earlier and lied.
NO ONE questioned his patriotism in his campaign, least of all George W. Bush. AAMOF, his opponent praised Cleland’s service during the debates.
Go ahead, step into my trap and claim that he wasn’t lying and that Cleland’s patriotism was questioned. Go ahead and claim that Cleland was compared to Osama or morphed into Saddam in some commercial—-I dare you.
I have a link to the commercial ready and waiting and will then watch you follow so many others who will then fall back on some talking point spin about “associating” or “hinting”, because that’s all that’ll be left — dishonest spin.
And that will be before I ask how Bush was behind it (I notice that Matthews didn’t think that claim was worth following up on) and demand some proof on your part.
I don’t think you want to go there.
Nice try at changing the subject RW. Are we “in agreeance” that Malkin lied and Matthews’ response was appropriate?
As for your “I dare you to knock it off” act — you and I know the facts, and you’re not capable of admitting the slime machine nature of the charges made against Cleland, so why bother. God will have the last call on that one.
That’s an intentional Fred Durst reference — a guy who got a lot of crap for being right.
Sure he does.
This is someone who claims that Zell Miller “wants to return to his Jim Crow roots,” and links Miller to Eric Rudolph.
Or, at least does so in a manner comparable to Cleland’s “link” to Osama (i.e., mentioned in the same breath).
Do you dispute that Miller supported Jim Crow laws in the 1960s?
And I didn’t link him to Eric Rudolph. I said he could go as far to the right as he wanted and it wouldn’t concern me as long as he stayed to the left of the Eric Rudolph line.
one last thing — if I were a candidate for the United States Senate, and I had a campaign commercial that mentioned Rudolph and Miller together as my other snarkly off hand quasi-anonymous comment on a weblog did, I think I’d be disqualified from office due to bad judgment. There is a difference between formal, official campaigning, and bs-ing on the internet.
PJ, jeez, most to the democratic party voted against civil rights in the 60s. Even Al Gore Senior. If it were not for the republicans, then it would not have passed.
Nice try though.
Zell Miller or Robert Byrd, whose record, goin’ ALL the way back, is worse? Or, tell ya what, keepin’ it among the non-klansmen, how about Fritz Hollings?
And your comment about bad judgement in an ad disqualifying you from office, well, that’s plain laughable.
***and you’re not capable of admitting the slime machine nature of the charges made against Cleland, so why bother. ****
oh, please, let’s have the details of the “slime machine”, pj.
I live here & saw the whole campaign up close, so I’m anxious to see all the ‘slime’ that I’m apparently not ready to admit to. I’ve openly stated that I’m a two-time voter FOR Cleland, so I’m open minded enough to say “let’s see what ya got”.
As far as Malkin goes, I’m more in the boat with Dave – she should’ve said “NO” emphatically and then gone back to noting that she was talking about accusations in the book. Doesn’t change that Matthews is carrying Kerry’s water, but there you have it.
Now, let’s see your evidence of the ‘slime’ against Cleland, ESPECIALLY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE W. BUSH WAS BEHIND IT, since that’s what Cleland charged on Matthew’s show last night.
In the words of your candidate:
[I said you might not wanna go there, but you had to go & insult me]
I said Malkin was hot, but she has crazy eyes – how is that disparaging her appearance? Oh, wait, this is Ricky world, where nonsense is sense.
“i said Malkin was hot, but she has crazy eyes”
Yeah, crazy eyes, just like all them orientals, right Oliver?
Why does Oliver Willis hate Filipinos? And when will his bigotry stop?
capt’n joe — you’re missing the point. It is true that before 1964 the democratic party was full of racists. I probably wouldn’t have been a dem then, when people like Miller were dems fighting for segregation.
But the dems became the good guys, at great cost. The party embraced civil rights in the 1960s, which fractured the party. Nixon took advantage and welcomed the racists to the republican party, and the great switch was on. Sure, some oldstyle dems never switched, like Hollins and Byrd. They claimed to have changed their views and stayed. The young racists like Trent Lott and his ilk knew where to sign up, and it wasn’t with the donkeys.
All this relates to a different thread about how for a lot of politicians like Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms on the one hand, and Jim Jeffords on the other, the parties moved, not the person.
Hollins and Byrd, they CHANGED, but Helms and Thurmond, they DIDN’T change.
And as for where the young racists wound up, I’m curious, does that mean that Al Sharpton isn’t a racist, or he isn’t young? Or is that part of the Republican Party?
I’d be curious, too, about Hilliard and McKinney, but perhaps being anti-J.E.W.S. doesn’t count as racism.
Jesus. Another one jumps the shark in defense of Swift Votes for Bush. Are there going to be any readable right of center blogs left by election day? I’m down to Drezner and the Volokhs…I mean, Leni Riefthenstal? And if you read the transcript, Malkin explicitly says that people have argued that Kerry shot himself on purpose.
I saw the show and read the transcript. It happened exactly as Malkin occurred.
And I don’t care much for Malkin- and Oliver knows I don’t.
I think it’s best that you leave any commentary about physical appearance (“crazy eyes” or otherwise) to others.
I’m trying to help you out.
BTW, you might want to get Duncan to ask your lying boss Brock to find out from your sugar daddy Soros on what planet “making commentary” suddenly becomes “disparaging”.
Or is that about as close to getting something factual as you guys can get?
“And if you read the transcript, Malkin explicitly says that people have argued that Kerry shot himself on purpose.”
Bullshit but thanks for playing.
Perhaps these “readable” blogs on the left are the ones who engage in outright distortions and shouting down people who say things they don’t like. I know that if Volokh or Drezner sat down to read the transcript and Malkin’s quotes of the book, they’d agree with Cole more than you.
Fact: Malkin replied to Willie Brown’s question about Kerry’s shrapnel by repeating that the Swift Boat Vets had raised questions about wounds being “self-inflicted”, which is true. At no time did she say he “shot himself.”
Alternate universe MEDIA MATTERS post:
“Rush Limbaugh said that liberal Asian pundit had ‘crazy eyes.’ Call your Congressman to have him banned from Armed Forces radio today.”
Soros must be paying his chunky flunky in mounds of Wendy burgers for his latest baloney.
As the link to the transcript of Hardball is down right now, I’m going from memory. But Malkin only said that Kerry’s wound was “self-inflicted”. She never said he shot himself. If you read the book and any number of reports about the incident this referred to, you’d know it has to do with the likelihood that Kerry shot a grenade that hit too close to where he was and resulted in a light scratch that earned him his 1st Purple Heart.
It was Matthews that turned what Malkin said (“self-inflicted”) into “He shot himself”, and then wouldn’t give her a chance to respond.
But thanks for taking the time to get the facts straight.
P.S. to pj. What, exactly, are the “lies” in the Swift Boat book and what are you basing your opinion on? Kerry himself has not come out to defend the allegations. The factual eyewitnesses are running heavily in favor of the Swift Vets.
Just wait…the spin will be that at some point Malkin said the word “yes” to one of Matthews non-stop (overbearing and incessant) questions, meaning that she meant to say “yes” to the question of whether he’d shot himself.
I’m willing to put up $20, paypal, on it.
Didn’t see the show. But I did read the transcript. I support Bush, and I think (because Kerry made it a central issue) that questions regarding his service are legit. So I’d like to think that John is right and Big Oliver is wrong.
But I can’t. Again, I don’t know how flustered Michelle got, but it sure seems that she was implying that the Swiftboaters alleged that Kerry shot himself on purpose. This is false, and she wouldn’t clarify that even when Matthews ordered her to do so.
I think Michelle comes off badly here, and it was a dumb move by her. John, I’m just telling you what the transcript shows.
DFJ- Watch the show. You will see how she was not implying, but that they were talking over each other.
John, do you think she’d read the book before the interview?
I like the fact that Michelle’s defense for gibbering completely insane drivel is that she’s only repeating what the book says; only even the “Unfit” book never says that Kerry intentionally wounded himself, as she claims. It’s almost like claiming something is so because the Turner Diaries say so, and getting even that wrong.
So basically, she’s saying “Mathews is a big meanie for holding me accountable for the stupid things I said.”
Brilliant. At least she has an intellectual suicide squad to try to defend her inanity.
Mrs. Malkin cited the page number as a reference on Rush Limbaugh’s show this afternoon. So, about 10 million people heard the source and the exact location of where some of the vets question the wound, not outright charge that he “intentionally wounded himself”….nice word parsing, pal.
As John says, Malkin was right.
“So basically, she’s saying “Mathews is a big meanie for holding me accountable for the stupid things I said.””
I suppose it’s too tough for you to find out what the SUBJECT of that discussion was. So here you go:
It was about the book “Unfit for Command”.
So you’re bitching about Michelle Malkin referencing and talking about the contents of a book, that is in fact the frigging SUBJECT of the discussion?
Well hell. Hey you’re a liberal. That generally means, from my experience, that you don’t know your ass from your elbow and you’re completely ignorant of the subject at hand.
Just another day on the blogs.
We should charge you tuition.
So, there are only 4970 items mentioned Kerry’s wounds as self inflicted that can be found in 10 seconds on google.
Yep, can’t figure out where Malkin made that one up. Good things Matthews is on the case.
**Mrs. Malkin cited the page number as a reference on Rush Limbaugh’s show this afternoon. So, about 10 million people heard the source and the exact location of where some of the vets question the wound, not outright charge that he “intentionally wounded himself”….nice word parsing, pal.**
Except that Malkin falsely claimed the Swift Boat guys alleged that Kerry did shoot himself on purpose.
No “word parsing” there. It’s in the transcript. Check here and in the links from that blog.
Not that a oxycontin-addicted wingnut like Rush would have bothered to fact check Malkin.
Some of us watched the episode & know where Matthews was cross-talking and interrupting. Try to get your info from sources other than mediamatters or atrios (who are mere ants in the world compared to Limbaugh). I suggest watching it.
Sorry, I forgot atrios/duncan was one of the butt-boys for Soros & thus I was being redundant. My apologies.